House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., recently provided ammunition to GOP doomsday rhetoric by suggesting the Dems would ramp up congressional investigations into the Bush administration and might even entertain impeachment talk if they win back the House.
It wasn’t a smart message. While some investigations might be overdue, including into the newly revealed NSA phone record database, most Americans don’t want an agenda of blame-gaming and recriminations. That self-indulgent, punitive approach will probably motivate the GOP base more than Democrats.
Instead of playing to GOP stereotypes, the Democrats would be wise to offer a point-by-point positive agenda that addresses America’s real problems, such as how to get out of Iraq, reform immigration and control health care costs.
Voters are in a mood to reward substance and competence on national problems.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/8
- XXX on Open thread 11/8
- DavidB on Open thread 11/8
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
70 Comments
Randy from your mouth to Deans ear! Better yet the Grand ole party might want to listen too, it is not too late for the Republicans to fix that which it wrong….It will just take looking in the mirror for the party to see the first step.
Agree with writerdog.
Both parties are failing to connect with voters. The blame game doesn’t do any good.
Both parties are more similar than they are different. Just two degrees of seperation really. They may have different stripes, but it’s still the same skunk.
They need to pick better leaders also. DeLay is one of the corrupt members of Congress and Nancy Pelosi is a media clown blow hard.
Same goes with Frist and Ried and even Hastert. Talk about bottom of the barrel. Yeah! They are skilled pandering lying politicans, but they suck at leadership.
Without sounding completely redundant, I concur completely with the two previous “bloggers.” I think a strong alternative energy policy and a promise to fix things in a positive way is the key to winning votes. Let Bush hang his own self.
The Dems point by point positive agenda? Have to have one before you can point to it!
I disagree Randy.
The GOP has failed utterly and miserably.Thing is, that failure has not touched them except politically, though it has HURT just about everyone else in more real life ways. America is ripe to punish the GOP and shove them back under the rock where they belong.This is not the time for diplomacy. This is the time to knock the GOP down, kick it in the stomach, and stomp on its head.
JR
Good to see you’re so full of love for your fellow man this morning.
Dems need a positive message AND they need to investigate the law breaking party. What is complicated about that? It should not be an either/or situation.
Good point JR. Why should we love those who have so damaged our country as Heckler seems to imply?
I agree DD; the Dems need both.
Yes, Ben. It is time to have a positive message and time to “bite the hand that has slapped them.”
So, let’s put shoe on the other foot and ask, WWGOPD, in particular, Karl Rove’s GOP? Play nice? Be deferential?
Really, Wingnuts, how stupid do you think we are?
Negative messages work; look at Rove’s success over the last six years. And they particularly work when the object of your criticism is out there for everyone to see. Wingnuts are just scared that Democrats will go negative on substantive matters, and win using this tried and true tactic. Thing is, Democrats don’t have to fabricate anything; Bush’s misrule is so breaktaking and far-reaching that, if played correctly, it will take down a large percentage of his Congressional Republican enablers.
Pathetic, these calls for ‘civility’. It’s like telling an abused woman not to stand up to her abuser.
It all sounds good. Of course substance and competence would be much more well recieved than current tatics. The problem is, the DSA wing of the Democratic party which Ms. Pleosi chairs, has decided that democrats are not running shit within the democratic party. Radical Socialists now numbering 60 within the house, have their own agenda, methods and goals which are contrary to that of the traditional democratic values. They know full well that the louder they rant and the more outragous their claims the more press they get. They subscribe to the old hollywood wisdom that any publicity is good publicity.Until these people are replaced or forced to register under their own party, democratic values will be overshadowed by a few on the left coast and New England like it or not.
“If played correctly” is the rub. I agree with Randy. Pelosi is an idiot.
It’d be nice if the Democrats would step away from Napoleon’s “if your opponent is destroying himself, don’t interrupt him” and offer some semblance of a national vision.
Combine that with the mountain of evidence surrounding Dubya’s unilateral dictatorship, and it’s a can’t-miss recipe.
But as we’ve seen in 2000, 2002 and 2004, that vision thingy is something the incompetent Dems struggle mightily with.
They’d rather just float above the fray while Rove slanders all their candidates, and lose elections because the majority of the American electorate is too apathetic and stupid to do their own political homework.
Pelosi is not an idiot. She is a socialist, and in college she was a communist.She is just trying to use the same tatics that worked in the 1960’s, but failed to recognize the fact that communication are different now and they no longer enjoy the benefits to limited sources of information that were avaliable then.She also failed to recognize the fact that there is no longer a compelling reason to support her ideals, because there is no longer a draft that sends people flocking to shelter under her wing.The truth is, some of her tatics have been taken directly from old Republican play books, such as “throw everything out there and see what sticks” Once again, these are tatics that worked much better in the past because now there is the distinct possibility that it will backfire, and she cannot count on the lack of media outlets to let it disappear.Again, Pelosi and those like her are not idiots, they are simply tardy.
JJ – one problem with trying to present a monolithic “vision” is that the Democratic Party is DEMOCRATIC – that is its members are free people with their own views. They don’t walk in lockstep behind their leadership.
Radical US socialist, lol.
YBS, if you think there are 60+ radical socialists in the US House, then I’d venture you’ve never ventured outside the US.
A “radical socialist” by your standards is very likely a clear-eyed, clear-headed right-of-center everywhere else.
I doubt seriously that 1 in a thousand Americans has ever met a “radical socialist.”
At least ybs implicitly acknowledges that what they call “hate-politics” originated with THEM.
What you say is true Ben, but if we examine the Democratic Party when it was in it’s prime, unions were strong, life was good for the common man. Frankly, there was a lot of “lockstepping” conforming necessary to keep the republicans at bay.With only two parties to choose from, whoever is the most united will be the winner most of the time.
Sorry,
Nancy Pelosi is a ‘radical socialist,’ as are 60 Democrats in the House? Dude, can I get some of what you’re smoking?
Also, the link to Maggot Punks was MINE. Credit where credit is due, Mr. Sorry.
Flike,I say 60 because there are a few that choose not to actively associate themselves, and have their name listed as part of the membership.While I have only visited 12 different countries in my lifetime, I have to agree that by European or Latin American standards, American Socialists are fairly tame. So were European and Latin American socialist at one time. All things being relevant, they are in fact radical by US standards. Were they not, they wouldn’t run for elected office under the “Democrat” banner.
YouAreSorry (pitiful, in fact),
“A COMMUNIST!” OMGosh, I haven’t heard that one for awhile.
Hey, you missed the GOP memo–”communist” is dated and reminds people of McCarthy and the UnAmerican Activity Committee.
The new irrational scare word is “terrorist.” Terrorist-lover, America-hater, and traitor are also good.
Jeez, get with with the program will ya, Sooory?
And why is everybody so concerned about the Republican “base.” Don’t the Democrats have a base to be concerned about?
They used to, until they sold out their base for an appeal to the idiot middle.
That’s why the Green party split off and was one reason why Gore didn’t get enough votes in Florida to clearly win (among a number of other factors including but not limited to wide-spread Republican disenfrancishment of Democratic voters).
“Hate Politics” is entirely different tatic than I mentioned Ben.”Throw everything against the wall and see if it sticks” depends on making every imaginable false or phoney accusation one can possibly get printed in the press, and is based on the premise that by the sheer volume, at least a few are going to be twisted into something resembling a credible accusation.
Sorry, Soory, I don’t buy the moral relativism in your analysis. A socialist is a socialist, and there are very few if any in federal power in the US today.
There are no radical socialists in Congress, period. None.
I guess randomly tossing out lies (McCain fathered an illegitimate child) is OK as long as done by the GOP.
LH, one thing is clear. You are not old enough to have even the slightest clue as to what you talk about.
2000 – FL and NH were clearly swung by the votes that went to Nader. If those had gone to Gore and Bush in a 75-25 ration Gore would have handily carried both states.
Those two states are the only ones that were swung by a third-party candidate.
I never said it was ok Ben. I said it was a tatic that politicians use, and despite the garbage and name calling that you read from LH, I am not a republican either. Never have been and never will be.
Soory,
I’m 50 years old, you dumb a$$ . . .
But keep posting, by pure accident you’ll say something correct one of these days.
Flike,Sorry you disagree, however the fact is there are all sorts of different varieties of socialists, just as there are all sorts of flavors of communism.Like it or not, political affiliations and ideologies are not as clear cut as A “Socialist is a Socialist” anymore. Widespread communications make that impossible.
Sorry to hear someone your age is so unstable LH. I can’t imagine a 50 year old adult promoting sites such as maggotpunks.com, but to each his own.
“With only two parties to choose from, whoever is the most united will be the winner most of the time.”
There is definitely some truth to that as was shown in 2000 when the far left deserted Gore and gave FL and NH to Bush. However, in an off-term election the key will be to field individual candidates in individual districts who can unite just in that district.
Also, unity can go too far and then lose the middle. We saw that with McGovern and also with Goldwater.
Well, ya know what they say, “you’re only young once, but you can be immature all your life.”
‘Course I’m not the one calling the Democratic Minority Leader a “communist.”
Hmmm . . .
BTW, the term “maggot punks” came from a Fred Phelps protestor–This is what he called the folks who were counter-protesting in favor of gay rights.
Now that the Republicans are breaking out the “She’s a communist” rhetoric, does that mean we get to start calling people fascists? If so I guess that’s fair.The Democrats need to prove they have the balls to run this country and that means making sure that violations of the Constitution are investigated and prosecuted. It is the job of the Congress to CHECK the Executive branch, not to bend over for them. Clinton let a lot of the wrong doing by daddy Bush (Iran-Contra, etc…) go uninvestigated, at his insistance, in an effort to build a bi-partisan relationship. How did that work out for him? 8 years of investigations in to EVERYTHING.This concept of “Imperial” Presidency must die the horrible death it deserves and Democrats are the only hope, because we all know that the Republicans are going to do anything about it, even if they disagree with it.
Ybs?
Why B S?
Calling Hook immature and unstable is fairly tall talk from someone who posted on the “Does duct tape work on Democrats” to the effect that you preferred a baseball bat.
And now you are red baiting.
Better check under your bed for commies bs.
Flike
Try this link.
http://bernie.house.gov/pc/
You’ll find 61 of them I believe.At least by my definition of radical socialist. Anyone who ascribes to the cause of “Economic and Social Justice” is a radical socialist in my book.
Oh look the ORIGINAL wing nut dolt weighs in.
Yes yes we know Heckler. Your record here is very clear.
When you aren’t a bush apologist you are a damned feudalist. Anything left of the middle ages is socialistic to you.
Management twit.
Nicki,
Judging by Heckler’s attempt to denounce social justice as ‘radical’, I believe ‘fascist’ is indeed the right term for freedom-despising, Wingnut true believers such as him.
It isn’t working JR. Misquote me all you want and ignore the fact that it was LH that started with the name calling and rants all you like, the fact is, his/her actions were exactly what I said they were.Red bating is just foolish. Nancy Pelosi’s past is an open book, and her affilitations in the 60’s are well documented. Bringing up the truth about what her beliefs are has nothing to do with baiting anyone. Deny it all you like, but it doesnt change the truth.
JR
If you pay any attention you’d know that there’s plenty of things I disagree with Bush on.
Call me an asshole if you like but Bush appologist I am not.
ybs?
Did you or did you NOT post that you thought the preferred method for dealing with Democrats was a baseball bat?
CF
Enforcing equal outcome at the point of a gun sounds pretty radical to me.
Heckler your only problem with bush is that he isn’t a BIG ENOUGH goon.
Go look under ybs’s bed for commies!
So THAT’s why Heckler needs to carry a gun so bad. Big bad government commies are around every corner!
You wingnuts gotta get your enemies straight. GOVERNMENT is your FRIEND now cause you control it. Much to the detriment of all that is good.—–
No JR I did not and further more you know i did not. What I said, was I thought that using a baseball bat was the acceptable method. A tounge in cheek reference to Ann Coulters preferred method of dealing with a liberal.Please do not pretend you didn’t know that.
JR
I believe you might be on the cusp of a breakthrough. Did you ever wonder why the Second Amendment ended up in the Bill of Rights? Not commies but Totalitarians of all flavor.
YbsI could assume anything I like about your baseball bat post. Funny how you get to play word police with other folks post though.
I’ll square off with Coulter and her bat anytime!It couldn’t harm her appearance any!
Poor paranoid Heckler. He’s got his and he is Oh so afraid someone gonna take it away from him.
You apologize for the most potentially tyrannical administration in history Heckler. You may well get your feared totalitarian government. Patriot act was a heck of a start…..
If it SHOULD come to that, do you think your little pistol is gonna be a match for the military?
CHOOSE your battles BEFORE it comes to that.
I can’t remember where I read it, but maybe it was a link from this blog (I am older than LH, so that may be my excuse for my memory problems) — that in essence argued that our social justice was a reason why there would not likely be much internal support for terrorist planning in this country.
So, rather than being a problem, our social justice concerns are a strength, not a limitation. IMO.
Sorry YBS and Heckler,If you really think there are 60 socialists in the House, you guys are living in a parallel universe.
Ann Coulter – the darling of the Right. Said her only regret about Rightie hero Tim McVeigh was that he didn’t murder all the people in the NYTimes building.
The “acceptable” way instead of the “preferred” way. And they complained about Clinton parsing words!
It’s not restricted to mere socialists, DD.
They say there are 60+ _radical_ socialists in the House, and then of course we’re all treated to their Cirque de Soleil mental gymnastics act of twisting the meaning of “radical” up to where their definition fits.
There isn’t even 1 radical socialist in the US Congress, much less 61.
DD
Go to the link. The Progressive Caucus.
http://bernie.house.gov/pc/
Now if a progressive and a socialist are not the same someone please explain to me the difference.
If “economic justice” is not a radical concept tell me what is.
Salt on your watermelon?
Thanks Heckler,I went to your link. Here are the goals of the progressive caucus (cut and pasted from your link):
“The Progressive Promise is rooted in three core principles:
“Fighting for economic justice and security for all;Protecting and preserving our civil rights and civil liberties; andPromoting global peace and security.”
Heckler, I like you from what know of you here. I also know that we hold very different political views. Let me clarify our differences – the above goals are ones that I whole-heartedly support.
“When people get together, miracles happen”Pete Seeger(a communist who was held in comtempt of Congress when he refused to testify in front of McCarthy’s committee; and the best damn folk singer I’ve ever heard)
I’d call laisez faire capitalism a radical concept.It is not conducive to a harmonious society.It divides society. It rewards avarice and exploitation. It makes slaves of those who have not to those who have. It gives birth to crime.
I love salt on my watermelon. Doesnt everyone?
DD
“Fighting for economic justice” is the part that scares me. As I understand it “economic justice” is essentially forced economic parity,”everyone gets the same amount of stuff”. If your definition differs from that I’d be interested in hearing it.
JR: Your true colors are starting to show. Capitalism rewards innovation, persistence, hard work, courage and intelligence. It leads to a better life for all as jobs are created, new products developed and standards of living raised. Wealth created encourages investment.
Contrast this with the stagnant, depressed socialist societies of the present and recent past.
Heckler,Thanks for asking. Let me try to explain my views.
The Republican party’s ideas about “personal responsibilities” are correct, up to a point, in my opinion. I think the more responsibility a person assumes, the more freedom they ultimately have — it is a paradox that way, I think. So far, so good on this idea.
Where I part company with many Republicans on the responsibility topic is their apparent position that no one should ever help someone else. In the pure “ownership society” a person’s problem is their exclusive property. I think it is okay if there is income redistribution up to a point — it is okay to help poor people through my tax dollars.
Democracy does incentifize some good things, as Out outlines above. But, I am reasonably sure that if the world is going to survive, the idea of helping others is going to need to be de-criminalized.
Social Security was people getting together and using the government to solve their problems. The government is not always a bad thing. Socialistic ideas are not always bad things.
As far as your point about “forced economic parity” — parity has never been achieved anywhere at any point in human history. Christ said “the poor will always be with you.” He has been right so far. But, I think it is okay to help others and when people put our heads and hearts together we are strengthened and NOT diminished.
These may be radical ideas. I do not apologize for them.
Pete Seeger (87 years young; I am proud he is a fellow countryman)
Outlander – Vaclev Havel (who led Czekoslovakia’s ‘velvet revolution’ against communism) also warned about unfettered predatory capitalism as being equally evil.
Go watch 24 Outlander. You don’t read carefully.
I sais laissez faire (or unresrtricted capitalism) was a radical and bad idea. I stand by that. I am proven every single day correct.
Restricted captitalism is good.Lately, we are losing the restrivtions.
Progressive taxation is absolutely a must. Minimum wage and other work laws are also helpful. Estate taxes on estates above the obscenely wealthy are vital.
Thank you for clearing that up JR. I was hoping that you weren’t a socialist. You’re not are you?”Laissez faire capitalism” is generally synonomous with “capitalism” or “free markets” according to my reading.
I agree that regulation is necessary. It becomes a question of how and how much the free markets should be restricted. The “invisible hand” will work, but not quickly enough when it comes to individual justice.
“Laissez faire capitalism” is probably variously used to describe different things. For example; some might use it to describe predatory monopoly while others would not.
Isn’t it funny how upset the right-wing gets over socialism unless it’s socialism for the rich.
Exhibit A–no bid contracts to Halliburton. We’re paying billions of dollars to Halliburton? How much, “can’t say, it’s classified.” Is any money missing, is it all accounted for. “Can’t say, classified.”
Could somebody else do it cheaper. “Classified.”
Unbelievable.
But continue to whine about grandma’s medicare . . . those damn parisites.
Heckler,They are the same. In fact, until they got busted out by the Washingtion Times (or Post), Bernie’s site was hosted by the DSA and they shared the fist and rose logo right on the home page. I dont know what it is now, but their old mission statement stated their purpose was to remove the stigma of the word “Socialism” in America.In any event, when you go down the list of members, it explains much.
With Bush’s approval rating dropping into the twenties, people might like to see a little accountability, as long as it didn’t detract from straightening out some of Bush’s messes.
I agree Steve. The Dems will have their hands full trying to extricate America from the hole Bush and the GOP have dug – interminible war, huge deficits, low standing in the world, etc.
What I would like to ask is this: Why was it so important to spend years and hundreds on millions investigating Clinton’s blow job but not important to investigate these messes?
The country was all entangled in accusing defending Clinton, that Al-Quida progressed virtually unabated. Prosecuting and investigating Bush, should be secondary, icing on the cake.
Ben, (we missed you!) but to answer your question…
…IOKIYAAR